Humanist Counter-Theory in the Age of Misandry

Peter Lloyd sues over sexist policies

When I became a member of my local gym, it was to exercise my body – not my human rights. But that’s exactly what I’m doing with the Kentish Town Sports Centre in north London.

The venue, owned by fitness company Better in association with Camden Council, attracts hundreds of people from all sections of society: religious, atheist, male, female, young and old. There is no dominant demographic. Everybody is welcome and everybody gets on.

But not everybody is equal.

Because, in an age of political over-correctness, they ban all men and boys for 442 hours every year – simply because they are male.

Adding insult to injury, they still charge them the same full-price membership fee as women, but refuse to offer the equivalent option of male-only sessions.

Not only is this an outrageous business model, but it’s also sexist. Especially given that council officials base it almost solely on women’s needs.

Fair? I think not. But, because we live in an age of acceptable misandry, most people are too polite to say anything.

Not me.

Several weeks ago, I formally complained to the general manager, asking him to change the policy with one of three alternatives: A) maintain a women’s hour but introduce a men’s alternative for fairness, B) keep women’s hour (and only women’s hour) but annually charge men less, or C) scrap single-gender sessions altogether.

Hardly controversial.

After all, if demand for women-only sessions is so great then the gym should put their money where their mouth is and fund it themselves.

Unsurprisingly, they declined.

‘A report by the Women Sport and Fitness Foundation showed that a significant proportion of women (26 per cent) “hate the way they look when they exercise”.’ they replied in an email.

‘This takes on an even greater significance when you consider that women feel even more self-conscious when taking part in sport and physical activity when men are present. If you are wondering who or what [we are] it’s a charity that specialises in increasing women’s physical activity levels.’

Translated into plain English, this means that a group of agenda-driven feminists say a minority of women ‘feel’ bad about their bodies. And because heterosexual men are naturally attracted to women, their very existence makes it worse, so they should be banned.

No, seriously.

That’s like trying to clean a dirty face by rubbing a mirror.

It also assumes that all men in the gym are straight, when many of them are gay and have no interest in the female aesthetic. In fact, if they really wanted to, these men could be voyeuristic in the showers. So what next – gay and straight hours? And what about lesbians – can they attend women-only sessions, or would it make their straight sisters uncomfortable? Gimme a break.

If these women have issues with their bodies, I truly sympathise – but it’s their problem, not mine. Nor is it any other man’s.

And who’s to say we don’t have our own body hang-ups? We know for a fact that increasing numbers of men suffer from anorexia and bulimia as well as ‘bigorexia’ – the need to be as muscular as possible. Rates of men having cosmetic surgery are also increasing year-on-year, so the facts speak for themselves.

Interestingly, women’s hour also has little to do with religion. The gym have scarcely used faith to justify their policy, but – even if they did – it still wouldn’t excuse their unequal price structure.

Want women-only sessions for religious reasons? Fine – more power to you. But don’t ask men to pay for 442 hours they can’t possibly use. No God would approve of that.

Furthermore, when I explained that men typically die before women, thus have a greater need to access fitness services – something based on cold, hard fact rather than feelings – they had no convincing answer.

Tellingly, the gym’s policy also assumes that only men can objectify the opposite sex. But if TV shows like Sex and the City taught us anything, it’s that women can be just as forthright. In fact, only two weeks later, I was forced to complain when four teenage girls were wolf-whistling at boys in the weights area – jeering and laughing, while ranking them by size.

This wouldn’t be acceptable if the sexes were reversed, so why is it tolerated here?

This is precisely why I’m suing them for gender bias. Not simply because their policy is unfair, but because it pathologises masculinity while simultaneously repressing it.

As far as I’m concerned it also breaks the law.

So far, the legal team at Camden Borough Council have simply made me laugh. They’ve spent hours quoting Harriet Harman’s Equality Act, but continue to miss the point. No customer, male or female, should pay for gym time they’re not allowed to use. It’s that simple.

Ultimately, however, it has nothing to do with money. At best, I want a 10 per cent refund; something I would donate to men’s charity CALM (Campaign Against Living Miserably), but, like the test case of mis-sold PPI, it would empower other men to demand the same compensation – hitting the gym where it hurts.

But, finances aside, the Kentish Town Sports Centre has a social responsibility to encourage equality as well as physical health. Forcing men – whether 70 year-old pensioners or 13 year-old boys who attend with their mothers – to leave a room because of their gender, rather than their behaviour, is degrading. It’s also eerily reminiscent of when African Americans were separated from their caucasian peers in 1940s America.

Not least because the underlying maxim is the same. In this instance, that all men are inherently bad. This is a toxic message to send out, especially when those affected are frequently young boys in crucial stages of puberty and self-development.

Such messages are pernicious. They criminalise men for being male, while telling women that they have less responsibility to contribute to functional gender relations.

Interestingly, it’s not just patrons who are angered. Last week I spoke with two of the gym’s male fitness instructors who expressed their frustration with the ban – not least because, in the middle of a double-dip recession, neither can work during female-only sessions. It’s insane.

Fortunately, I have other helpful supporters who want to liberate them. Erin Pizzey, the woman who established the world’s first-ever domestic violence shelter in 1972 before becoming a men’s rights activist, has offered her backing. ‘This discrimination has no place in modern society’, she said.

Stateside, the U.S. website AVoiceForMen.com has recently added their weight to my case.

Now, I ask common sense and British law to do the same.

Being a test case, my claim has sparked global interest because of its potential impact. If I win, gyms all over the country could be forced to update their policies. And rightly so.

Not only would this be physically healthy for people who want to exercise without restriction, but it would also be socially healthy for those who understand the toxicity of sexism, whether directed at men or women.

For some, this might be a revelation in itself, but trust me: it comes from a place of genuine fairness.

Yes, my case may raise some eyebrows, but hopefully it will also raise some consciousness. Because, currently, the staff at my gym are telling our young men they’re dangerous by default.

And that’s a weight no man should learn to carry.

This article appeared originally in Dailymail, and is reposted here with the author’s permission.

About Peter Lloyd

Peter Lloyd is a London-based journalist and men's rights activist. Currently he is a columnist for the Daily Mail and has also been a regular pundit on BBC London Radio. He is the author of Stand By Your Manhood.

Google “U alberta women in change room” and you’ll get the pdf result for the research paper published in Phenomenology & Practice, Volume 5 (2011), No. 2, pp. 57-69. Whose Eyes?: Women’s Experiences of
Changing in a Public Change Room

The citations at the end should provide some more confirmation.

Nice work, btw, Peter!!

ScaaarBeeek

Peter has had a lot of support on Twitter in fact. I tweeted his article to my nearly 2000 followers. (I’m not ScaaarBeeek on Twitter by the way). And some of my followers tweeted to their followers.

Yesterday morning, we exchanged cordialities over it. BUT. He’d soon after had his account suspended. I’ve no idea what that was all about. Does anyone know?

http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com ImNotMraBut…

Yup peter has had his Twitter account taken off line – I suspect it’s due to false complaints about tweets to keep his way from social networking – Been done to me twice now in 72 hours too! U have to wait until all of the crap has been looked at and cleaned out before twitter get you back on-line. It’s interesting just how some scream about freedom of speech and then do everything to stop anyone else speaking!

The techno Fems are very determined to control who may see what and when! They are so unhappy too cos the story has also been circulated on Reddit – 6 threads and been up voted some 16,000 times and they are fighting to down vote and control the profile. There are some 14,000 down votes … just shows the levels of automation that the fem hackers are pulling to control the net and any dialogue.

And they just crashed the Dow Jones Too! P^)

ScaaarBeeek

Thanks for your answer NotMra. (You’re one of my Twitter followers by the way, and I one of yours.)

Quite disgusted.

But I think they’re taking on the wrong guy. He writes for a national paper and has a BIG voice. I think there’s a tsumani coming their way in the months ahead.

http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com ImNotMraBut…

I’m just getting more and more intrigued by the hacking and abuse of Technology that is so very apparent. It’s not just on social networking either.

It’s odd that anonymous have apparently stepped into two rape cases – First Steubenville and then Rehtaeh Parsons. It’s so very odd that individuals are doing this, and even odder that it now seems that Canadian law Enforcement welcome it. It keeps looking as if there are a growing number of fem hackers and they are doing what they want and being given the Vagina Pass.

napocapo69

well done Peter!
Let’s fight…

http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com ImNotMraBut…

I can never figure out which is more shocking – the Sexist Bias the runs riot – or that The Daily Mail is actually addressing it. It’s like the National Enquirer winning a Pulitzer. When that happens you know it’s all gone way too far and the backfire is inevitable.

As they say you can fool all of the people some of the time – and feminist can think people fools, but people are not responding well to such contempt at this time.

http://www.youtube.com/user/MrShadowfax42 MrShadowfax42

Pretty much every paper is just as bad as all the others. If they aren’t tabloid rags or control-freak papers like the Daily Mail they are feminist-infested broadsheets like the Guardian. At least the Daily Mail has a history of covering misandric stories.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Correctrix/videos Correctrix

Yes!

It’s pretty shocking that feminists have such a stranglehold on otherwise good media, that we have to turn to a filthy rag like the Daily Mail to read a good article on this topic.

It’s a blatant example of discrimination against men. It’s also a policy that is likely to exclude both trans men and trans women.

Near Earth Object

C A R

http://www.youtube.com/user/Correctrix/videos Correctrix

Do you have any actual criticism of what I said, or are you just trolling?

Near Earth Object

You have receive my reply—Crap and Run Artist!

Trolling?

Three of your four replies at AVfM this morning were directed at me.
Who is trolling who, stalker!

Fantastic stuff Peter. Absolutely unacceptable and your racial analogy is very effective. I wish I’d joined the gym so I could cancel my membership in protest.

scatmaster

Sent the link to Curves telling them they were next on the list. hehehe

Near Earth Object

Outstanding activism, scatmaster.

And damn funny too

Near Earth Object

“Yes, my case may raise some eyebrows…”

And if those eyebrows become raised, then pluck them out, would be my suggestion.

“And that’s a weight no man should learn to carry.”

I especially liked your choice of the word “learn”, which implies social conditioning.

Great to hear back from you on this matter, Peter.

Carlos

I haven’t seen a gym with a policy analogous to this (ie women only hours) but there are a number of women only gyms around here.

For my part I fully support this lawsuit, though I would not care about these (and similar things like “Lady’s Night” at bars and trivially differential pricing for men and women) were it not for the way feminists have vilified and all but eliminated male only spaces — up to and including the Boy Scouts and the locker rooms of professional male athletes which allow female reporters to enter.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and if male only spaces are sexist then so are female only spaces. If policies/practices that favor men are universally sexist then so are the ones that favor women.

If we, as a society, were not so resistant, and indeed hostile, to even acknowledge that male specific issues exist I, likewise, probably would not care about such issues.

The reality is though that there are still wide swaths of feminist and women’s groups who, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, continue to claim that family court’s are biased… against women!

As recently as 2007, Warren Farrell collaborated on a book by Oxford Press, “Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate” where he argued in the affirmative and feminist ideologue James P. Sterba (and author of numerous books on philosophy, ethics social justice and morality no less) took the opposing view.

The short summary of the book was that it kinda sucked. Farrell did a good job of summarizing the issues (though you’re better off reading his full length works,) but Sterba just spewed the usual suspects of feminist agitprop w/o acknowledging any of Farrell’s points including claiming that family courts were actually biased IN FAVOR of men and that abusive men were routinely given custody of children.

Kimski

“If these women have issues with their bodies,”

This begs for another “Oh, grow the fuck up!”-comment, so here goes:

Oh, grow the fuck up, why don’t ya!

The Real Peterman

And here I thought that if a person had a problem with how they viewed themself it was up to them to fix. Turns out, everyone else in town has to bear that cross. Who knew?

JFinn

I know that authors have changed their usernames to be their real names now. But can we make an exception for Peter Lloyd and have him publish under the name ‘I Am Your Hero’?

If you’re gonna get kicked out for “grunting” in the gym, might as well go all the way and make your offense historic and yourself famous. March to the center of the gym, drop your workout shorts and jock, squat down and ‘take a grunt’ –– “Uh” “Uh” “Uh” –– leaving a big wet pile of stinking brown turds in the middle of the ‘Gym Dandies’ floor.

You’ll be on the news, the video will go viral on YouTube, and Daniel Tosh will do an entire segment on your activist protest.

DragonFire

Ok..it’s their gym and they can set any policies they want…but seriously, she called the cops?

Over grunting?

Is this really the BEST use of police time?

http://peteysoft.org Petey

I had to sign up because I can’t believe no one’s brought this up yet. Grunting? In a gym?? It seems to be perfectly alright on a tennis court, especially when the competitors are members of the “fairer gender…”

Teerex

The libertarian in me gets a bad taste in my mouth from the use of state and it’s bullies to right any wrongs, but there’s an old saying. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”

Unregistard

Right on Peter. More men need to file lawsuits at every painfully obvious discrimination they see. Flood the court system with demands to address misandry and demand the equality mean equality. Raise a big enough stink with thousands of small actions and people will start to take notice of the misandry all around them.

feeriker

I ask common sense and British law to do the same.

Now what could one of these two things possibly have in common with the other?

But seriously, best of luck to you, Peter. If the gym in question were a privately owned facility, then let them be free to discriminate to their heart’s content. I as a man would certainly never dream of becoming a member (and wouldn’t need to, as there would be plenty of competition from other gyms more than eager for my business), but if they can profit by catering to women only, then let them make the most of the existing market.

However, since the gym in question here is, as I understand it, a government owned operation, funded at least in part, I presume, with tax dollars forcefully expropriated from men’s wages, then the current situation is unacceptable. Leaving aside the question of whether running such a facility is even a legitimate function of government at all, the idea of forcing one demographic segment to further subsidize something from which they are not allowed to benefit is a pervasive evil that needs to be stopped. Let us hope that a victory for you will represent the first step in making this happen!

http://feministlies.wordpress.com/ Theaverageman

Women only spaces in gyms irk me as well.Why should men pay the same price as women for equipment they can not use?

DragonFire

I agree….segregating any section of a gym or pool by gender only is discrimination.

And it needs to be stopped.
Over here in Australia, a lot of public pools are adopting a ‘female only’ time ostensibly for mostly religious reasons.
My thought is…who the hell cares. A person’s religion is their own business, and it should not be forced on the rest of the community. GIven that a lot of these places are run by the local governments, just makes it worse.
More power to you, Peter!

https://twitter.com/MarkTrueblood Mark Trueblood

This was written exceptionally well for a mainstream audience. The utmost of fairness and empathy.

bruce_loco

Ok, This reminds me of the gays that want to attend church, when religion does not condone sex between 2 individuals of the same gender, not that I would give a f***, I am an atheist, but I believe that religious people have their views, and Gay people should form the church of the Loving Penis, where all gays are allowed, although there would be a divide later because of the feminist lesbians.
So probably church of Apexual would be more effective.

You really want do do something about it: Simple, print flyers and make men aware of it and you yourself stop going there. Will it become a women only gym? Doubt it, but the lack of revenue will hurt them.
Get complaints from all men in the gym.
Make it a petition, make it official

OneHundredPercentCotton

Gays belong in church as much as anyone else. I’ve always thought God loves gay people, and hate it when “religious” types try to say they don’t belong.

I’m a neutral-gay person,not pro or con, it’s none of my business I don’t give a damn, but I’ve seen people saying to gays “God doesn’t love you because you’re gay” and to me it’s like saying “God doesn’t love you because you’re a bastard child”.

I just don’t believe it.

Billybobownway

I think you are confused on that one. A religion is not a god. Christian religions alone believe in ten or more different gods. Religions are not open societies. If you do not agree with the religion do not attend. Should a synagogue be forced to be accept Heinrich Himmler or Eichman as a member?

This site should stick to mens/human rights. Freedom of religion is one of those. Discuss religion somewhere else

OneHundredPercentCotton

“This reminds me of the gays that want to attend church, when religion does not condone sex between 2 individuals of the same gender,”

I was responding to this comment, and I do not need your permission to do so.

“Church” and “religion” does not condone a whole LOT of stuff people do every day, and it does not stop people from attending church one iota, nor should it.

Adulterers/esses, murderers, thieves,bastard children, people who plow their fields left to right instead of vice versa all choose to attend church without anyone questioning why they want to.

Why would gays be any different?

This isn’t a “religious” discussion, it’s a reality discussion.

sondjata

Yeah but your opinion about what you think God loves or does not love is irrelevant. If a religious organization is against something and you don’t agree. Up and leave. That’s what I did. If I stay then i’m imposing on the people who agreed to abide by “the rules”. It’s not my place to force them to change because “I” don’t like it.

If you don’t agree. Stop going and form your own. And then You can teach what YOU think God loves and doesn’t love.

OneHundredPercentCotton

Nobody who attends church “abides by the rules”. Not one single person.

Not in the history of mankind.

So I don’t know why gays would be singled out as oddities for wanting to attend church when everybody else attending isn’t “abiding” either.

Adam Catalyst

I completely disagree. First off, assuming all members of any group, religion, married couple, sports team, etc. are homogenous in beliefs and aims is completely untrue. Humans are far more complex than that, and I don’t know anyone who doesn’t struggle with at least one aspect of their affiliation with any single group.

Secondly, working towards change you believe in is not an “imposition”, it is the responsibility of every member of the group. Nothing is static. Life is change. Groups evolve as their membership evolves.

Sometimes leaving the group is the best decision for us personally. But it is cowardly to do so without sharing our thoughts and feelings with the group first. We can’t assume with certainty how others will react. What we do know for sure, is that if we remain silent and walk out the door every time it seems that our opinion may be in the minority, we render ourselves powerless, if not worse, complicit in the very things we reject.

bruce_loco

Dude

I have nothing against gay people or their religious rights.
The catholic church was established based on a foundation straight couple foundation, and although there is lots of gayness and paedophilia in the church, it is not accepted.
This is the same as saying: My club is only for people with white shirts and black shoes, and an idiot comes along with red shoes and a black shirt and complains that my club denies his rights. It is my club, hence my rules, you want your club, make your own with your rules.
The gay/religion was a metaphor towards this article. I agree with the suing, but I believe that he should gather other men and make it a class action to be more effective.
Since when have men become so illogic and pussies around here? Are you a feminist in disguise and I hurt your feelings?
Grab your balls, join them with your brain and be a man. My comment was on cold hard logics. Read it again if you will and see if you can actually comprehend the message, I am not cowtowing to your feelings, as I would not do the same to accommodate a religious zealot.

OneHundredPercentCotton

Nobody questioned or accused you of any negative or derogatory feelings toward gays.

I just think questioning why gays would want to go to church even though they aren’t welcome wasn’t a good example to use and gave my reasons why.

I’m not a dude and I’m not a religious zealot. I don’t see what grabbing my balls has to do with the conversation, and if I WAS a religious zealot, I would have…AGREED with you.

I personally don’t care to go to church, but I respect without question that others do.

bruce_loco

Sorry it was my bad

Then you can grab your boobs and join them with your brain. Also, I did not call you a religious zealot.

Only my ex told me I had problems communicating because I write long sentences, from now on they will be short and clear 😉
Maybe it is just me and women.
Also you missed the important point that I wrote cause you decided to focus on my metaphor.
He should have made a petition and tried to get more men to sign and possibly go class action style.
Personally I hate women time. I did not subscribe to a gym because they had a women only area, which means my usability is limited.
Now why Peter is suing and he is right, is because this gym is partially funded by tax payers, and since I live in Bristol UK, I am one of those.
And I already give away too much money for reproductive filth single moms that will breed about 5-10% useful individuals and about 90-95% fucktard chavs.
Nanny state Britain:
“Get pregnant bitches, others will fund your life choices”

http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com ImNotMraBut…

If your going to get All theological over what us gay folks can and can’t do at least do it with some style….

Laddition

funniest comment that I’ve seen today – respect. I like your style.

http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com ImNotMraBut…

Mr Favourite YouTube Clip – A message to the “Ignorant Tight-Ass Club“. I Just Love a man who can deliver a mouthful and reach rhetorical climax with such style.

bruce_loco

I shall consult my gay friends on this one ImNotMraBut 😉
I can’t remember one of them telling me that they’re religious though

http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

“…This reminds me of the gays that want to attend church…”
There is no comparison whatsoever. This gym is not a private club; it is funded in part by a government whose policies prohibit sex discrimination. Before you go tossing irrelevant, inflammatory statements around, perhaps you should take the time to understand the issues – not the complex issues of gays and religion, but the very simple issue of government-funded sex discrimination, the actual subject of this article.

bruce_loco

No disagreement there Susan, I pay £1k taxes monthly and it hurts that it goes to shit like this

Robert St. Estephe

Feelings,
Wo-o-o feelings
Wo-o-o feelings
Again in my heart

Feelings,
For all my life I’ll feel it
I wish I’ve never met you, girl
You’ll never come again

Feelings,
Wo-o-o feelings
Wo-o-o feelings
Again in my heart

Feelings,
Wo-o-o feelings
Wo-o-o feelings

Make ’em feel it in the wallet.

http://www.youtube.com/user/MrShadowfax42 MrShadowfax42

This is fantastic news Peter.

IMO it needs to be taken further.

Eg in this example you are suing because you were offered no refund for the hours that you are banned from using the gym. However many council-funded gyms/swimming pools in the UK have women-only swim and gym sessions. These are prime examples of taxpayer-funded bigotry.

I’ve had comms with some of these places before. It is Harriet Harman’s despicable sexism that allowed all of this to come about, and the management are fully behind it. I sent an email of complaint to one place local to me and got what can only be described as a lecture on morals back from the moron in charge. The subtext and message was – “of course these women are entitled to gym time that you men aren’t. How dare you even suggest otherwise, you bigot?”

Well, time is running out for chumps like that, thanks to the stand made by Peter. Time to start amending some policies before we get to YOUR gym on the list.

externalangst

Could it be that another selling point to the ‘ladies’ other than ’embarrassment’ are notions of female superiority? ‘Selling point’ is not quite right as the ‘ladies’ don’t pay for their delusions of the superiority by having superior access and discounted fees to the equipment in the gym.

As usual, men pay for the ‘ladies’ superiority complex in this gym. Men pay financially so as to subsidize the ‘ladies’ superior access to time and equipment and in the degradation/humiliation of males that make the’ladies’ feel special.

As usual, the way to make ‘ladies’ feel special is not from anything they may do themselves but to further degrade and lower the status of men. Feminists can’t seem to think of any other way women could become empowered other than by degrading males.

As an extremely crappy marketing strategy, it’s not that original. The dehumanization of boys and men has proved very successful for the extraction of cash and votes from women.

If the ‘ladies’ had to pay extra for their delusions of superiority then it wouldn’t count – would it? Paying extra for superior service does not make one intrinsically or innately superior. So men have to pay extra for this marketing strategy to work. The only other alternative is to exclude men outright – but then women would pay their own way.

However, when women-only gyms are advertised on Australian TV, they invariably use the degradation of males as a marketing strategy. But at least here women are paying their own tab.

The Kentish Town Sports Center thinks it has a better idea. We’ll see. More power to you Peter.

Truyardy

Give em hell Pete.

Umfweto

Good on you Pete.

I appreciate that some woman are over sensitive about their bodies, but they can’t expect everyone else to pay for their social dysfunctions.

I used to go to Virgin Active in Oxford Street (now closed down). It had a woman’s only area that was almost always empty. But despite that both men and woman who where balanced and health enough to share the same space had to pay the same price for the occasional weak minded anti-social twerp that needed her own little special place in the world in order to feel normal.

The idea that equality is about supporting the dysfunctions of others is crazy. I had a difficult and abusive child hood that left me feeling sensitive to the world. Thank god as a man, there are no special places for me to drown in ideas of victim hood. I am happy that I am forced to face up to the world and myself.

I maintain that the positive side of feminism is that it makes it easier to spot the bad selfish ones.

The wimpish sheepish children that need their own little protective bubble do not have my gaze and attention to worry about. That I can assure.

Anyway mate, we need a forum or mailing list for the MRA’s in London. Does one exist? How do London MRA’s tlk to each other?

The grunting is an interesting one isn’t it? There probably isn’t a straight man on earth who thinks that’s sexual. But it was explained to us in another post recently how women find almost everything a sexual turn on. Maybe men need to have ‘Grunt Walks’ similar to Slut Walks. It seems the very same reasons apply.

Peter, your February article describes the “walk of shame’, which I found particularly disturbing, as men are marched out like convicts because they are inherently bad. Disgraceful!!!

All of my life I have felt very self-conscious in the gym. The women all line up on the bikes and look at the men, leaning over to whisper to each other. It’s incredibly humiliating. But I am required to man up. So I make an effort to go when they aren’t there and use parts of the gym they don’t use.

Last year my gym (in the outer suburbs of Melbourne Australia) put up a sign on the door to a large open room which has punching bags around the perimeter. The sign said ‘Women Only’. Men are not allowed in this room now. This room is used for group exercise and I used it when empty to do ‘stretching’ way from the women as they almost never used it. If women ever came in to use it I would leave and come back later. But now I am not allowed in there at all because I am bad. Even though I have always made a conscious effort not to look at the women respecting, I thought, their space. I was so embarrassed at being shamed like this, even though I have never even had a bad thought, I haven’t been back. Ironically there is a very large ‘Woman Only’ gym (Ferndale) only a hundred meters away.

But you have motivated me to complain and ask for a similar male area. But will fall on deaf ears I am sure. And I will refer them to this article. So thank you just for that. I am sure there will be thousands and thousands of men ‘rooting’, to use the American term, for you.

Grumpy Old Man

These skinny feminists are ruining it for all of us. Don’t they realize these tufted women are more fun to do body shots with?

Good article and work.

Aimee McGee

Peter, just been laughing my arse off reading the comments in the daily mail.
I hope this works, and we get some men only sessions. I support some degree of segregated exercise opportunities for both sexes, due to very real issues of body image and of religious freedom and tolerance. I also personally like the woman’s only session swimming at my local pool, because I usually get the fast lane to myself….bwahahaha.

http://www.youtube.com/user/MrShadowfax42 MrShadowfax42

I think that if people are so bothered about others not looking at them in these situations, they should pay up for a private session just for themselves. Held outside of the time when normal people use the facilities.

donzaloog

He had every right to sue. This is discriminatory bullshit. This is just another example of women coming into traditionally male space and demanding that changes be made to suit them.

Why does everything have to be filtered through the “how it makes women feel” bullshit? Your feelings are not other people’s responsibility.

Bewildered

Women are special but equal !!! An anti-climax ?
Or does it mean that women are human chameleons ?

Rad

I have no problem with men’s only gyms, or women’s only gyms.

I have no problem with gyms that have hours only for women or men, provided that this is disclosed/accounted for in the contract you sign for the gym membership.

In this case however, this is a “Town Centre”, which is (partially?) funded by (local?) government. And government involvement means that equality must be in force.

It’s like religion in public schools. Private school directors should have a right to have whatever type of school they want, but public schools cannot favor any particular creed.

This would all be a non-issue if the government were not involved at all in facilitating/financing gyms.

Bravo. well written article. I live in Ottawa Canada and a few years ago, after my divorce, the closest gym to where I was living was a women’s only gym. I had to travel 15KM (10 miles) to the next closest gym that was heterosexual as there are no men’s only gyms. I have subsequently moved and can now walk to a city run gym, but it’s the point that if there were men’s only clubs (golf courses, boy scouts, etc) they’re found to be unconstitutional and a furor is raised about them.

You know, I’ve always said this, that if you would give a gender to a city and country, that Ottawa & Canada would be female.

Additionally, I work for the feds (federal government) and they have 4 populations that are considered employment equity: Disabled, Visible Minorities, Native/Indigenous peoples & WOMEN. The issue though is that 55% of the work force are women. Never in my life did I ever think that 55% would be considered a minority. So much for the laws of mathematics.

scatmaster

I have been a member on Fark for about twelve years now as a Total Fark. I just cancelled my Total Fark membership after viewing the overwhelming commentary of the white knighting manginas on the thread associated with this.

Put up with a lot of bullshit over gender issues on that forum for years but this put it over the top.

Fuck you Drew!!!!!

jerrytheother

Marc Angelucci and NCFM successfully sued a bar for ladies night, I believe. I think also female only gyms -check the website – ncfm.org

Bemused Curiosity

http://jezebel.com/jackass-suing-his-gym-for-their-442-women-only-hours-pe-476604412 it seems we got a reaction from the nice people over at Jezebel. Interesting to see a counter response that injects a little reality into this. It seems that the thrust of it is that because women are oppressed they need a safe place to work out. I quote “I agree! It’s fucking shitty of us to marginalize boys and men with eating disorders, and we should do something about it. That’s a completely different subject, and, for that matter, one that Lloyd doesn’t really give a fuck about other than its use as a handy citation for his argument.” It would seem Mr Lloyd does care about these issues as he actually raised them and is taking action on behalf of equality, not just paying it lip service as a means of throwing an insult.

Umfweto

Remember: Feminists are the ones who will tell you that Islam is sexist because it’s separates men and woman whilst in the same breath tell you to man up about female only gym time.

Time and time again they just prove themselves to a bunch of illogical idiots.

MGTOW-man

Good luck Peter. A lot is hinging upon your success.

But be realistic; special preferential treatment for women is likely to prevail, just as it has so many times and with the US Supreme court allowing all-women colleges even though it is unconstitutional.

Apparently most women must feel like it is fair to see women as equal but still let them have their way all the time and for men not to notice all the help women get routinely with things they still claim they are equal and need no help (!@#$%^&*)

If you win, you “hate” women, of course. This is the trend.

I really hope you win to not only help stop this sort of revenge-filled “equality” but to fight to reverse the feminist-minded stigma that prevails whenever men have legitimate issues with feminism-driven selfishness and obliviousness.

Plus, my message to all is that we can start telling boys that many women let their feelings dominate their fairness-seeking issues in which the outcome gets skewed toward women in ways the men see, those women do not, and men continue to comply as if they are puppets for women.

This message to boys must be coupled with teaching boys to avoid women who can’t manage to put their irrational feelings aside long enough to actually live the equality they sought so hard for.

Don’t be afraid to help steer the boys toward more smart ways to live and outsmart the feminists too.